I feel sorry for all of y'all that get bored watching older movies, especially movies as fun as the 60's Bond films. And I get slightly depressed reading that there's such a disconnect with these films with your generation. (Damn you, Brosnan years!)

I'm cool with other older films. But older Bond films are strangely difficult for me to connect with.

The cumulative effect of the 60s Bonds is like sipping chilled martinis while watching the sun set at the French Riviera. The cumulative effect of the Brosnan Bonds is like snorting 64-bit lines of coke in a night club/gun range.

Die Another Day is Brosnan's second best Bond mainly because of the first half being pretty good and that unlike Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough it actually has style and flair, which are as crucial to Bond films as the stories.

I can't believe you're giving DAD that much credit. To me there's almost nothing redeamable about it e.g. Madonna cameo, invisible car, Halle Berry, and John Cleese, just off the top of my head.

A[quote name="History Buff" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/1140#post_3474554"]I can't believe you're giving DAD that much credit. To me there's almost nothing redeamable about it e.g. Madonna cameo, invisible car, Halle Berry, and John Cleese, just off the top of my head.
[/quote]DAD is without a doubt stupid, but it's never dull like the previous two.

DAD is stylish as all hell up until they get to the Ice Hotel - Bond's ludicrous swim across Kowloon Bay aside, and even that is handled with enough chutzpah to be acceptable. Then the wheels come off, big time. Still easily my second most rewatched Brosnan after Goldeneye. Vincent Schiavelli and the scenes in the Saigon market in TND, and the aesthetic pleasure of watching Sophie Marceau in TWINE are about the only redeemable features of the other two.

In fact, in terms of set up and first half, there are more than a few parallels between DAD and Skyfall, both anniversary pictures.

A[quote name="jhp1608" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/1150#post_3474592"]DAD is stylish as all hell up until they get to the Ice Hotel - Bond's ludicrous swim across Kowloon Bay aside, and even that is handled with enough chutzpah to be acceptable. Then the wheels come off, big time. Still easily my second most rewatched Brosnan after Goldeneye. Vincent Schiavelli and the scenes in the Saigon market in TND, and the aesthetic pleasure of watching Sophie Marceau in TWINE are about the only redeemable features of the other two.

In fact, in terms of set up and first half, there are more than a few parallels between DAD and Skyfall, both anniversary pictures.
[/quote]

Yup! I said in the Bond thread that most of the first half of DAD does feel like a precursor to Craig's film with the emphasis on putting Bond in a tough spot, becoming marginalized by M, ect. The scene with Bond looking like he's about to be executed by the North Korean firing squad is one of the few genuinely suspenseful moments in the Brosnan films, you really feel like there's no way out for him here. But then it turns out to be even worse as he's traded for a terrorist who's immediately set free by the Koreans, and now he take matters into his own hands to right a wrong and search for the mole in MI6 that sold him out. I also like the idea of Bond and M meeting underground and given an assignment off the books so that the mole would be unaware of his presence (until M immediately discloses this with an agent, going against the whole point).

I really wish the film focused more on Bond searching for the mole, as the whole Gustav Graves aspect feels like a distraction. Apparently the original draft was a lot more grounded like the Craig films but when Tamahori was hired he wanted to add the crazy shit like invisible cars and giant laser beams, embracing CGI as "this the beginning of 21st century Bond". Ten years later it's the opposite, and thank god.

I missed this in the cinema for some reason and never really followed what people were saying about it that closely, so some of what I'm gonna talk about might be stating the bleedin' obvious at this point.

I saw it a second time recently, and firstly it's really really good, easily one of the best Bonds and a serious contender for best. Secondly I find some of the meta things it does really interesting. I see on the first page some people were criticising the 'winks' to the audience. But because the knotty history of Bond is closely tied in with the themes of the movie, I think the references have more weight than just fan pandering for its own sake.

Casino Royale seemed to be setting up a new continuity with more internal consistency and Bond as more of a real human being. A nice idea, but Quantum pretty much torpedoed that plan by being dreadful, which combined with the writer's strike killed any momentum the series had been building. Skyfall dramatises this by having Bond start the movie literally wounded and put out of commission for ages, forced to prove himself with a grand comeback.

The way Bond saves himself, and the series, practically qualifies as magical realism. He gets into his Aston Martin, a car that's not just his but Connery's from Goldfinger, and drives off "into the past". You can read the ejector seat bit as just a gag, which it is, but it's also making the statement that Craig's Bond isn't sealed away from the old movies any more. Craig's Bond *is* Connery's and Moore's and Dalton's after all, and part of the same vague, nonsensical dream continuity as they were.

What's even better is this 'into the past' theme follows logically from the literal plot of the movie and should make sense even if you ignore the meta stuff and have never seen another Bond film. And that they immediately follow their big "Bond is back!" moment with easily the weirdest and least traditionally Bond-ish climax of any of the films. And that they do one of the most dangerous things a movie in a classic series can do, which is to create a humanising backstory for a iconic character that really doesn't need one, and somehow manage to get away with it.

In a way it's a shame they had to re-reboot the new series to do all this (I mean if you treat Casino as year 0 for Craig's Bond, a fair bit of stuff in this movie doesn't make much sense), but at the same time there's something delicious about the way it frees up the next one to just relax and be Bond. They managed to have and eat so many cakes with this movie!

I think the first hour and a half of SKYFALL succeeds at what every past Bond film has tried to be, but then it devolves into a DARK KNIGHT rip-off nonsense and I lose interest.

My opinion of Bond films is similar to MichaelM's though. Although I think DR. NO is charming in a quaint way. They just become more excessive as they go along. And it's your father's type of excessive. Long run-times and chaste sexual innuendo. It's not particular shocking or fantastical to the modern eye.

AI thought the climax of SKYFALL has been the best third act so far for the Craig era. There are echos TDK but since Nolan too a lot of cues from Bond I think it's only fair enough, since the only thing that really strikes me as a Nolan thing was Kincaid = Alfred.

I think the influence is more overt than echoes. In the bloated 3rd act, we get a Joker-esque charismatic villain, who goes through the perfunctory evil mastermind "I always wanted to be captured and now I'll escape" scenes. We then later find out James Bond grew up an orphan (?) in Wayne Manor with his own Alfred.

It's not just the TDK influence that bogs down the third act, it's the strange decision to focus on Judi Dench and then later drag out the ending so they can set up the new MI6 status quo.

AI thought they set that up quite well, it doesn't go against anything that came before and Bond's background isn't anything new here aside from Kincaid (Bond had an aunt or something, but she passed by the time he was an adult).

And I'm not getting the Joker vibe. It's not as if this series never had a charismatic essentroc villiain in the past. I saw more shades of Scaramanga (book version).

A[quote name="Mr. Stockslivevan" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/1150#post_3717727"]I thought the climax of SKYFALL has been the best third act so far for the Craig era. There are echos TDK but since Nolan too a lot of cues from Bond I think it's only fair enough, since the only thing that really strikes me as a Nolan thing was Kincaid = Alfred.[/quote]

The whole mansion burning down felt a little Batman Begins. He even escaped via a cave and even a chunk of music felt a little like Zimmer's score for TDK.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L7LMu2EoI8&feature=kp[/VIDEO]
The opening and the background music have a TDK theme going (although that theme is rathe basic).

it's the strange decision to focus on Judi Dench and then later drag out the ending so they can set up the new MI6 status quo.

Nothing strange about it. Given the limitations on what can actually be done to/with Bond, it's a rather simple and brilliant means of deepening his character through the sufferings of a supporting one. Bond can't die, we know. He won't ever be permanently sidelined or crippled or maimed. And the nature of his job demands tight lids on his emotions. If the filmmaker doesn't want to slide into Roger Moore camp or rote/flat formula, s/he must find a way to give Bond an arc or exploration of his character. M as the surrogate mother figure was a great way to go, and by making the stakes real (M dying) the events have weight.

AI'd associate "incompetent" with how he was handled in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Heck, even more so in the first two Craig films, but that's often chalked up to "he's still new at this!". In SKYFALL, it's about him getting back the eye of the tiger. The only real mistake I feel they did with him was have him go fisticuffs with that big guy in the pit, when Bond should have been doing judo.

A[quote name="MichaelM" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/1150#post_3717800"]
Skyfall, for me, is the best Bond, period.
[/quote]I'd still put it after Goldfinger and FRWL. But for sure it's the best of Craig's outings (and the more I watch it the more its lead over CR grows). Judi Dench however is not quite as good a Bond Girl as Eva Green.

[quote name="Mr. Stockslivevan" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/1150#post_3717865"]I'd associate "incompetent" with how he was handled in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Heck, even more so in the first two Craig films, but that's often chalked up to "he's still new at this!". In SKYFALL, it's about him getting back the eye of the tiger. The only real mistake I feel they did with him was have him go fisticuffs with that big guy in the pit, when Bond should have been doing judo.[/quote]so Skyfall is Rocky 3 not TDK. So why the hell was Kincaid not yelling "ya can't win James". Although calling him an uppity shit might count.

Given the limitations on what can actually be done to/with Bond, it's a rather simple and brilliant means of deepening his character through the sufferings of a supporting one. Bond can't die, we know. He won't ever be permanently sidelined or crippled or maimed. And the nature of his job demands tight lids on his emotions. If the filmmaker doesn't want to slide into Roger Moore camp or rote/flat formula, s/he must find a way to give Bond an arc or exploration of his character. M as the surrogate mother figure was a great way to go, and by making the stakes real (M dying) the events have weight.

The whole M plot-line just feels extraneous though. There's a good, lean 100 minute film in this bloated mess. Bond needs to get his swagger back, goes on mission he's expected to fail, and succeeds.

A[quote name="MichaelM" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/1150#post_3717800"]
Nothing strange about it. Given the limitations on what can actually be done to/with Bond, it's a rather simple and brilliant means of deepening his character through the sufferings of a supporting one. Bond can't die, we know. He won't ever be permanently sidelined or crippled or maimed. And the nature of his job demands tight lids on his emotions. If the filmmaker doesn't want to slide into Roger Moore camp or rote/flat formula, s/he must find a way to give Bond an arc or exploration of his character. M as the surrogate mother figure was a great way to go, and by making the stakes real (M dying) the events have weight.

SKYFALL, for me, is the best Bond, period.
[/quote]

Actually, it would take some doing and a little experimental ambition, but TDKR proves that you can technically "end" a character's run and start fresh. Hell, Casino Royale sort of proves that. Craig's Bond can die and then you just hit reset. If you do it rightright (like craft a unified narrative over three or so films), no one will blink.

AThat's something I wondered if they'd ever do with Craig once he does his fifth and final film, giving his Bond a definitive ending unlike his predecessors. I wouldn't be against it, as long as we didn't redo the Bond Begins arc again for the next actor.

The whole M plot-line just feels extraneous though. There's a good, lean 100 minute film in this bloated mess. Bond needs to get his swagger back, goes on mission he's expected to fail, and succeeds.

Which is bascially the plot of "Man with the Golden Gun", the precursor Bond novel to Skyfall. Problem is that works as a, fairly tawdry, knock off Fleming book (by a diseased, dying Fleming) but the modern tentpole film needs more heft. If there was an alternate timeline where Bond remained a gritty B-movie franchise, then I think your idea would have worked.

The whole M plot-line just feels extraneous though. There's a good, lean 100 minute film in this bloated mess. Bond needs to get his swagger back, goes on mission he's expected to fail, and succeeds.

Which is bascially the plot of "Man with the Golden Gun", the precursor Bond novel to Skyfall. Problem is that works as a, fairly tawdry, knock off Fleming book (by a diseased, dying Fleming) but the modern tentpole film needs more heft. If there was an alternate timeline where Bond remained a gritty B-movie franchise, then I think your idea would have worked.

Man with the Golden Gun isn't Gold Fleming, but it's not as bad as you make out. And a film with a brainwashed Bond taking out MI6 agents to get to and assassinate M would make a pretty damn good film, "B movie" or not.

AMendes has admitted to taken inspiration from the latter novels that had Bond in a dark place. When Purvis & Wade were using You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun as springboards, they consciously decided not to go for the brainwashing subplot because it would have added too much fat and given that Craig's run so far had been a darker take, they didn't want to double down on that. I do agree with that decision and if that brainwashing subplot is ever going to be used, I would prefer it in the manner that was done in the books with one film ending on a cliffhanger and then the pre-title sequence of the next film is about Bond's attempted assassination of M.

A[quote name="Cylon Baby" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/1150#post_3719739"]Or even better: what if Bond is not Brainwashed per se, but is led to believe that MI6 is being subverted, that Quantum has more moles in the organization, maybe even the new M?
[/quote]

That might be a better suggestion, especially since we even learn in QOS that one of the PM's top men is an operative, which opens up a lot of possibilities. The problem with trying to turn the brainwashing subplot into a full fledged film is that you have viewers watching Bond and waiting for him to snap out of it. You also run the risk of turning off a lot of people because they might think it weakens the character when he doesn't realize what's really happening until the end. That might have been why Fleming only kept that to two chapters, but who knows what he might have actually done with it had he finished refining the novel.

Man with the Golden Gun isn't Gold Fleming, but it's not as bad as you make out. And a film with a brainwashed Bond taking out MI6 agents to get to and assassinate M would make a pretty damn good film, "B movie" or not.

I guess I've never really bonded (hoo-hah) with it like I have much of the rest of the series. It felt in part like a re-tread of Dr No, and Scaramanga and the bad guys seem very minor in stature, especially given this was, in effect, the climax to a mini-epic. In a way it would have been dumb to try to top a ninja versus samurai battle in a castle garden designed for imaginative suicides, and I can see the appeal of a more earthy story. I'll also grant that it paints a different and interesting picture of a grittier, sweaty, humid, slightly manic and lurid Jamaica (?can't remember) but the concept of M putting Bond back into the field after he tries to assassinate him, however, just felt too much even for a Bond story. Felt like a pastiche, much like all the subsequent knock-offs.

AIt's based on a first draft (naturally it has all the characteristics you'd expect from a first draft like tons of contrivances), so it can never be fair to judge it the same way you could on the novels he finished. I think there was potential to make it a nice scaling back from the Blofeld trilogy, and possibly make a good coda to the Bond series as Fleming was conscious at the time that he would likely not work on another novel because of his deteriorating health. Bond getting his groove back in the end and turning down knighthood feels like a good way to end the series but with the door open in a way that can allow others to continue it.